Talk:Ogopogo
RE:Categories Do you really think the Ogopogo should be categorized as an "Aquatic Hero"? Cheers, SimonKirby (talk) 01:47, October 30, 2013 (UTC) I wondered about that when I did it, to be honest but, he is most definitely aquatic and, as far as I know, has never done anything evil so... decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. ;-)Cebr1979 (talk) 02:45, October 30, 2013 (UTC) :I think that's too broad a definition of the word "hero". Perhaps "aquatic cryptid" would be more accurate. SimonKirby (talk) 06:26, October 30, 2013 (UTC) :Whatever. He's something of a celebrity here so could be classified as a folk hero, who is also aquatic. I think you're nitpicking because I moved your photos.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:28, October 30, 2013 (UTC) I believe your reasoning is unsound, Cebr. According to your definition, any character that "has never done anything evil" would qualify as a hero. Common sense alone dictates that this is much too broad a definition. In addition, the creature's original name ("Naitaka") translates to "Lake Demon", which suggests something malevolent rather than heroic. Most popular cultural representations (books, computer games, TV series etc) depict it as a monster, so let me ask you again: do you honestly believe it should be classified as a hero? SimonKirby (talk) 23:05, October 30, 2013 (UTC) Not all monsters are evil. If you would like to create an "Aquatic but not Good or Bad" category, Simon, feel free. Just don't add any photos to it. LolCebr1979 (talk) 18:13, October 31, 2013 (UTC) :There's no moral ambiguity here, Cebr. The Naitaka has traditionally been seen as a dangerous supernatural creature that raises storms and attacks anything that enters its territory. Native Americans avoided fishing in its waters and some early European pioneers considered it a lethal predator. There is nothing in its mythological background to suggest anything other than an archetype water demon. I honestly don't understand why you want this particular cryptid classified as a "hero". SimonKirby (talk) 22:42, October 31, 2013 (UTC) I've already told you that I thought of him as more of a folk hero who is aquatic rather than a get-the-bad-guys kind of hero. I've also already told you that around here he's viewed as more of a celebrity than anything else. And lastly, if it's keeping you up at night, Simon, I've ALSO already told you to feel free to change it.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:48, November 1, 2013 (UTC) I'm thinking we need to just get rid of the aquatic Heroes and Villains categories and just create an Aquatic Characters category instead. Do you guys agree? Crimsoncrusader (talk) 00:34, November 3, 2013 (UTC) Works for me!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:57, November 3, 2013 (UTC) :@Crimsoncrusader: :I think we need a clear definition as to what constitutes a "hero". The Ogopogo is a water demon that has been adopted as a mascot; it doesn't qualify as a hero in the same sense as Aquaman or Don Winslow (I would argue the same case for creatures such as The Loch Ness Monster and The Mock Turtle - they simply don't occupy a heroic role). Naturally, I'll agree to whatever you decide, but I'd recommend having "Aquatic Characters" as a main category (listing all water-based entries) and three sub-categories; "Aquatic Heroes", "Aquatic Villains", and "Aquatic Creatures" (for cryptids and mythical beasts) - maybe more as it becomes necessary. I suspect that as the database continues to expand, we'll need to employ specific parameters. :Considering the scope of this wiki, we should place the needs of the user above all else. It would inconvenient to lump all aquatic articles under a single heading, as users would be confronted by a large number of articles with no defining characteristics. For example, if a person is looking for a public domain sea-dragon, they should be able to go directly to the relevant category (Aquatic Creatures) rather than sift through literally 97 different entries to locate what they're looking for. :Naturally, creating more clearly defined categories would require a little extra work from us, but it would ultimately make the wiki more accurate and precise in terms of information. Surely that would be worth the effort. Cheers, SimonKirby (talk) 02:06, November 3, 2013 (UTC)